Leica Optics

[vincentbenoit]

My take

My take

You guys are talking about sharpness (which, I obviously agree, is compromised by shooting hand-held versus from a tripod) but what about other aspects of image quality such as bokeh, colour rendition, chromatic aberrations, astigmatism, etc? I for one am often willing to trade off some sharpness for smooth, pleasant bokeh if the latter (which - correct me if I'm wrong here - is only minimally affected by camera shake) is important for the overall look of the picture (e.g. here: http://www.pbase.com/vincentbenoit/image/22393941.jpg). I don't own any Leica lens but if I was to get one it would mainly be for the trademark smooth rendering of out-of-focus areas.
Cheers
Vincent

 

[aizan]

but not every leica lens has smooth bokeh, so you have to watch out for those.

 

[doubs43]

There are, IMO, a number of factors that must be considered in this interesting discussion.

At the risk of repeating myself, if we place a value of 100 on the Leica optic and 95 on the "lesser" optic when each is mounted on a tripod, we can then gain a better idea of the effects of handholding on each. With all else being equal, lets say that the photographer introduces a 10% degredation of an image when handholding the camera. The Leica lens would thus give us a value of 90 while the lesser lens would fall to 85.5. The lesser lens remains lesser and there's no possibility of it ever matching the Leica optic when the conditions are equal for both.

There is a situation where the lesser lens could do better than the Leica lens: If the lesser lens is being used by a more skilled photographer than the one using the Leica lens.

Photographers have different skill levels. The ability of each to hold a camera steady will vary according to the person and their training and natural abilities. Some can take great pictures of things in motion while others can't. The rangefinder is probably a better camera for shooting action within it's limitations than an SLR. It's easier to follow the action and take the picture at the proper instance when seen through the viewfinder than it is to anticipate the proper instant and lose the image as the mirror moves out of the way. Developing the skill to "pan" with the action and take the picture while continuing to move the camera is worth gaining. Just as swinging a rifle on a moving target will result in a shot behind if the swing is stopped at the instant of pulling the trigger, so too will the photograph result in a blurred subject and sharp background if the camera is stopped when the shutter is tripped.

The attached picture was taken of a fast-moving 4-wheeler. It's full-frame and taken with a 135mm lens by pre-focusing on a spot and waiting for the 4-wheeler to reach the exact place I wanted. While I was using ISO-400 film which allowed me to use a fairly fast shutter speed, I set the camera for a speed that would still show motion in the tires. I could have gone to an even lower speed because the subject was coming almost straight at me which reduces the perceived movement. I pre-planned this picture. I may take it again some time with a longer lens.

Walker

 

[aizan]

imagine your hand drawing a 1 inch circle with a sharp pencil and another with a dull pencil. the amount of "blur" is the same, but the thickness of the stroke means that the circles are different diameters. whether the difference is significant depends on what proportion the stroke's thickness is to the circle's diameter. replace the pencil with a brush, then you can take the film's resolution into account.

when a 100 lp/mm lens produces 30 lp/mm under normal handheld conditions, there is a 70% loss of resolving power. a 70% reduction of 90 lp/mm gives you 27 lp/mm, which is 90% of 30 lp/mm, so the comparative advantage is maintained. but those 3 lp/mm in absolute terms is very little insurance against imperceptible motion.